Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

Date sent:              Fri, 10 May 2002 15:06:51 -0400
Send reply to:          filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
From:                   "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To:                     doogle@doogle.com
Subject:                [filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait

> > If
> > you wanted to scan at 8K
> > rez, then you'd have 5461 square maximum necessary, again, the
> > short side of the
> > 120 film. However, your 8K file, run on my recorder at either 4K
> > or 8K capability *on
> > 35mm film* will not look any different on output (at least to
> > your eye - perhaps there
> > are "measurable" diffs, I dunno). That's why I say that the
> > apparant resolving power of
> > 35mm film is reached at the 4096 x 2731 pixel count (using exact
> > 35mm proportions).
> I don't believe you can base your conclusion on the data you have (I thought
> about that on an errand I just ran).  It could very well be the recorder,
> for what ever reason, is not able to output 8k on a 35mm short side "well".
> That doesn't mean it's limited by the film, but limited by the recorder.  It
> could be, for many reasons, optics, vibration, imaging technology...I don't
> know, but I would not draw the same conclusion you have.
> Again, thanks for the discussion on film recorders, an area I previously
> knew not much about.
> Regards,
> Austin

I'll leave you with one other thing that doesn't quite jive - and surprised you 
didn't latch
onto it ! :-)

Let's assume that just for argument that the film recorder def of 4K (4096 x 
2731) is
the practical limit of 35mm film.

The 8K spec they give (8192 x 5462) doesn't quite add up.
2731 short side for 35mm (2.4cm)
5462 short side (or square in case of 'blad): ( 6cm)
6cm is more than twice 2.4, so the 120 is NOT getting same pixel density fed to 
it per
area as the 35mm.
This a limitation of CRT/flying spot scanning mechanism in film recorders, that 
are all in multiples of 2/4/8/16 K?
I dunno, and not having the 120 back (or currently 120 film scanner), am unable 
to test
for myself.


           Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL
  500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN 37919
 doogle@doogle.com  865-540-1308  http://www.doogle.com

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.